Aftermath of the Killing of Hussein’s Two Sons

Re “U.S. Kills Hussein’s Sons in Firefight at Mansion,” July 23: I have no direct information on the killing (murdering) of Saddam Hussein’s two sons. Did they deserve to die? Was their death important enough to have a positive effect on Wall Street?

Why are we policing the world? The money? The loss of money? I feel we were attacked first, that several countries were involved and this is a new kind of war. But war just the same. We are on a vengeance highway. Yet I still find it difficult to see that two brothers die and the stock market goes up.

T.L. Byers

Laguna Niguel

*

It seems unbelievable to me that no one questions the cost of killing four people in Iraq. We are very quick to celebrate, but we lose sight of the real objectives. Wouldn’t it have been more economical, more protective of our troops and resources and more useful to our intelligence services to capture these guys alive? Would it have been so far-fetched to contain Hussein’s sons in that building and try to remove them through negotiation, as in a hostage situation domestically, or simply by siege? This would have given us a better shot at increasing our knowledge of Hussein’s whereabouts.

Tim Knipe

Studio City

*

If Hussein is captured or killed, will that stop the warfare against the troops? Thousands of Iraqi soldiers were killed and injured in Desert Storm, and thousands of their families suffer their loss. More than 10 years of boycotts and sanctions have caused death and suffering to the Iraqi people. That war and economic isolation have rendered Iraq a hopelessly poor country. Hussein certainly is the cause of the misery that is Iraq today. Maybe the anger and hate against its deposed leader is equally directed by many against the United States. Two down, Uday and Qusai killed, and one to go: Saddam, dead or alive. Is it possible that to some Iraqis it is two down, and two to go: Saddam and the U.S.? Continued attacks could give the answer.

Ken Johnson

Pinon Hills

*

Re “White House Admits CIA Warned It Before Speech,” July 23: I see where deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley is now willing to take some of the heat for the 16-word fiasco in the president’s State of the Union address. That is supposed to take some of the heat off CIA Director George Tenet. Now we need one more volunteer to explain how the reference to the uranium was deleted from the president’s October speech, reinserted into the State of the Union address and the president knew nothing about it.

Bernard Rapkin

Los Angeles